Home Views & Opinions It is crucial to choose carefully

It is crucial to choose carefully


It is critical to hire the correct individual for the position. It is critical to ensure the possibility for optimal performance as well as issues of justice and fairness.
Even a world-class ice hockey player will struggle in Test cricket. And, if the goals of Test cricket are to play well and win, we should be ‘selecting’ the best players for our squad. We won’t get the proper personnel if the process isn’t fair and transparent. Also, even if we choose the best players, if the process isn’t fair and transparent, the public’s perspective will be skewed. And, in some cases, perception is more significant than fact in public settings.
So, selection is important, and selection must ensure that we get the proper person for the position, and selection methods must be fair and transparent so that people can trust that we are hiring the right individuals through a fair process.
It is not a simple effort to set up all of the aforementioned. We need to know the attributes that make a person suitable for a job since selection important in acquiring the proper individual for each position.
What criteria do you use to determine whether or not someone will be a “good” teacher?
This has recently been discussed in the context of appointments to the country’s Supreme Court. Should a judge’s seniority in the high court be enough of a qualification for appointment to the SC? If we say yes, we’re claiming – at least implicitly – that seniority ensures that each judge who is senior enough to be promoted possesses all of the other qualities we seek in our SC judges. It signifies that we made the proper choice at the high court level, and that these judges have continued to develop those traits, and that seniority is sufficient to determine elevation. If not, then seniority is a weak criterion on its own.
For all jobs, the same decision must be made. The seniority criterion is frequently used in bureaucracies. It’s the same problem as before. We must determine the appropriate criterion by which we should appraise a person’s appropriateness for each role, type of post, or employment.
For all jobs, the same decision must be made. The seniority criterion is frequently used in bureaucracies. It’s the same problem as before. We must determine the appropriate criterion by which we should appraise a person’s appropriateness for each role, type of post, or employment.
Finding the appropriate criterion for selection is a major challenge. Even though the information is readily available, the traits you seek may be difficult to identify or measure using ‘objectively’ available data. How do you know whether someone is going to be a “good” teacher? Most observable indications (previous education, success on content-related assessments) are not efficient ways of selecting instructors, according to the teacher literature. It necessitates a more in-depth investigation into personality and motivational issues. But, and here’s the catch, qualitative methods are the only route to go for deeper exploration (interviewing, personality tests, demonstration classes)
This creates a challenging dynamic, at least for Pakistan. When we use qualitative and non-objective selection criteria, the process becomes less clear. And, because we live in a world where corruption and nepotism are and have been rampant, a lack of openness is seen as an invitation to corruption and/or nepotism.
We must stick to ‘objective’ measures in Pakistan. This means that in many cases, we cannot choose good candidates; we can only select individuals who perform well on objectively verifiable factors, even if they have little to do with the candidate’s ability to accomplish the job for which they are being considered.
Take, for example, teacher recruitment. Interviews for teacher selection used to be given a lot more weight in the past. At the same time, there was a widespread belief, which was correct, that teachers were hired on the basis of corruption or nepotism. There was also a lot of legal action on the subject. Across Pakistan, provincial governments have agreed to alter the process. They enhanced the weight of a) academic performance and b) performance on standardised tests, reducing the reliance on interviews and other assessments (NTS in this case).
As a result, the process has been made more “objective” and “transparent,” but evidence relating to the selection of instructors from all over the world indicates that it does not choose good teachers. It targets test-successful people. In this example, transparency has come at the expense of possibly better selection. Which strategy was the most effective? One benefit of the current approach is that it is public and believed to be ‘fair,’ which has resulted in a decrease in teacher hiring disputes. However, despite progress in terms of eliminating corruption and/or nepotism, it falls short when it comes to selection.
In an ideal world, we’d have more nuanced testing methods, but they’d have to be public and free of corruption and nepotism. However, it appears that, at least for the time being, Pakistan is unable to create such a system. For fear of being accused of corruption, universities seek to limit admittance criteria to Matriculation/ FSc or similar examinations and other standardised assessments. They neglect to thoroughly examine other crucial aspects of personality (extracurricular activities, athletics, and community service).
It’s important to choose wisely. However, selecting the proper variables necessitates putting up selection methods and then making them transparent. We do a bad job of selecting optimally and building up effective processes in most locations in Pakistan, from the appointment of judges to the promotion of bureaucrats to the selection of teachers and pupils. If we want to progress toward a more meritocratic society, we’ll have to rethink our selection procedures totally.